Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

It's good that we have the supreme court to squash censorship laws in the US.

The funny thing is that ... in a sense, this is just more of the corporate-bias of the Supreme Court (business uber alles). It just happened to coincide with free expression and a blow against the "witchburners" for once. I applaud it, though most of the last batch of rulings of the court were fairly ruinous to the good of the community and favored the plutocracy.

this guy makes it sound like another victory for Walmart... teh 3vil Walmart!

Quote:

California State Sen. Leland Yee, who sponsored the original bill, said today's ruling "put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children."

"As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community," Yee continued. "It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

Um, dude...it is the parents right to not buy the product. You don't sue a company, you just don't buy stuff from them.

Also they phycologist dissagree with the concept behind this sort of law (that video games cause mental problems due to content)...they just haven't updated their major published works or what ever it is...that happens next year I think.

They believe children (note: elementary school aged) have as much disposable income as any high-school or college student (or even more than them), that they're able to get where they want to go, and that they're drawn in by any and all marketing. Therefore, the only option is to take legal action.

The funny thing is that ... in a sense, this is just more of the corporate-bias of the Supreme Court (business uber alles). It just happened to coincide with free expression and a blow against the "witchburners" for once. I applaud it, though most of the last batch of rulings of the court were fairly ruinous to the good of the community and favored the plutocracy.

It's fortunate that much of the time, big business's interests and my own coincide. They'd also coincide over secularism and taking power away from landed aristocracy. That said, I don't agree on other things. Ideally, the commercial lobby shouldn't be too strong.

The funny thing is that ... in a sense, this is just more of the corporate-bias of the Supreme Court (business uber alles). It just happened to coincide with free expression and a blow against the "witchburners" for once. I applaud it, though most of the last batch of rulings of the court were fairly ruinous to the good of the community and favored the plutocracy.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I was like, "Wait a minute, Justice's Scalia and Thomas actually made a left-leaning decision that I agree with?!!! What's the catch...what's the catch" and then it hit me. In the process of serving corporate interest (in this case large video game publishers whose sales could be impacted by California's law) they accidentally made a liberal decision that has a positive effect for gamers rights.

You can just see the utter contempt that they have for the idea of video games in th language used in their decisions though. It must have been agonizing for them to have to make this decision and I relish the thought of them going through it in their chambers.

I also get the feeling that if the plaintiff in this case happened to be an ordinary citizen or group of citizens in a class action case instead of the industry itself that the decision ends up being completely different. If it even gets heard by the Supreme Court at all of course.

e: Whoops! Apparently Thomas couldn't actually bring himself to agree with Scalia on this one, resulting in an extremely rare divergence of opinion for the two. He's one of two dissenting opinions. Wow! His whole first amendment doesn't apply to children ruling is fairly scary in and of itself (not so much the lack of right to speak to minors argument so much as the right of minors to access speech one) though and opens a whole new can of worms regarding the guy and his bizzaro ideas of justice. I can't say I agree with the whole argument that parents should have absolute authority over their kids entire lives until they are of age because that's the way it was in pre-revolutionary war times either. I don't think it's possible to have any more ultra-conservative (approaching on absurd) logic than that.

By contrast I can kind of understand where the other dissenter Breyer's argument is coming from. His is purely logical in that he states that the California law is specific enough to remain constitutional.

Now of course if you ask me the law seems redundant and that's why it ought to be struck down. We already have the ESRB rules in place to help parents make the decision and ultimately even if the kid wants the game but can't afford it the parent has every right to refuse them and be done with it. If they do have the money and the cashier refuses to sell the game to an under age person because of the ESRB rules then that is also a done deal. Why bother making things stricter and complicating the system with new laws and rules that conflict with each other?

I was thinking the exact same thing. I was like, "Wait a minute, Justice's Scalia and Thomas actually made a left-leaning decision that I agree with?!!! What's the catch...what's the catch" and then it hit me. In the process of serving corporate interest (in this case large video game publishers whose sales could be impacted by California's law) they accidentally made a liberal decision that has a positive effect for gamers rights.

You can just see the utter contempt that they have for the idea of video games in th language used in their decisions though. It must have been agonizing for them to have to make this decision and I relish the thought of them going through it in their chambers.

I also get the feeling that if the plaintiff in this case happened to be an ordinary citizen or group of citizens in a class action case instead of the industry itself that the decision ends up being completely different. If it even gets heard by the Supreme Court at all of course.

e: Whoops! Apparently Thomas couldn't actually bring himself to agree with Scalia on this one, resulting in an extremely rare divergence of opinion for the two. He's one of two dissenting opinions. Wow! His whole first amendment doesn't apply to children ruling is fairly scary in and of itself (not so much the lack of right to speak to minors argument so much as the right of minors to access speech one) though and opens a whole new can of worms regarding the guy and his bizzaro ideas of justice. I can't say I agree with the whole argument that parents should have absolute authority over their kids entire lives until they are of age because that's the way it was in pre-revolutionary war times either. I don't think it's possible to have any more ultra-conservative (approaching on absurd) logic than that.

I think the idea is that Minors do not have free speach rights, but also that minors do not have the responsibilities that go with it. Minors are not treated as full adults by the law.

Likewise parents have full responsibility for their children. Children are not legally responsible for their own actions. Likewise if a child destroys another person's property, it is their parents(or their supervisor at the time) liability. This implies that parents have to maintain some level of control over their kids.

I think the idea is that Minors do not have free speach rights, but also that minors do not have the responsibilities that go with it. Minors are not treated as full adults by the law.

Likewise parents have full responsibility for their children. Children are not legally responsible for their own actions. Likewise if a child destroys another person's property, it is their parents(or their supervisor at the time) liability. This implies that parents have to maintain some level of control over their kids.

Why bother making things stricter and complicating the system with new laws and rules that conflict with each other?

Welcome to the world of feel-good "think of the children" liberals. They disgust me. Liberalism has always been about freedom, not about banning things that make you uncomfortable.

The left and the right have never been so similar as they are now. Both of them are slaves to the corporate plutocracy, both of them want to curtail freedom as much as possible, both of them want to enforce their will upon the people. Ridiculous.

Welcome to the world of feel-good "think of the children" liberals. They disgust me. Liberalism has always been about freedom, not about banning things that make you uncomfortable.

The left and the right have never been so similar as they are now. Both of them are slaves to the corporate plutocracy, both of them want to curtail freedom as much as possible, both of them want to enforce their will upon the people. Ridiculous.

Wow, another person who I normally don't agree with, I find myself agreeing with today. What is the world coming to?

This is why I put "refuse" on the Zogby polls I do when they ask how I classify myself and then they only provide a linear left-right scale. Some issues I can read as "conservative", some as "liberal", some as smatterings of both... because the two labels are *actually* inconsistent in their various positions.

I agree with a lot of what libertarians stand for, except for the whole "let's completely gut the safety net" thing. Oh, and privatizing schools. I don't agree with that either.

Actually, there's a lot I don't agree with libertarians on, too.

On the flip-side, I don't trust the Government's ability to run a Lemon-Aid stand, let alone 90% of the things it's involved with. The larger the Government, the less freedoms we have. I say that about both the Right and the Left. Each wants bigger government in their own way.

On the flip-side, I don't trust the Government's ability to run a Lemon-Aid stand, let alone 90% of the things it's involved with. The larger the Government, the less freedoms we have. I say that about both the Right and the Left. Each wants bigger government in their own way.

I agree that a big, inefficient, wasteful structure doesn't get shit done, absolutely. However, I view the situation like this: you have a bear (the public sector/government) and another bear (the private sector/corporate). You should keep these bears the same size, so they can tussle and fight but never prevail one over the other.

Make the government bear too small and the corporate bear eats it. Make the government bear too big and it eats the corporate bear. The problem right now is the corporate bear and the government bear decided to join forces to eat the other animals, and that can't be stopped by shrinking or enlarging the bears. It can only be stopped by changing the rules of the game.

Power vacuums are naturally filled, which is why I can't buy the "diminution of government" that libertarians champion. Make the government too weak, something worse will inevitably fill the void.

I agree with a lot of what libertarians stand for, except for the whole "let's completely gut the safety net" thing. Oh, and privatizing schools. I don't agree with that either.

Actually, there's a lot I don't agree with libertarians on, too.

You're at Berkeley too, right? I'm sure you've probably had one of those libertarians in a class or discussion espousing how free and great the US is for something completely stupid like sexist ads or uncensored porn; God knows I have .

You're at Berkeley too, right? I'm sure you've probably had one of those libertarians in a class or discussion espousing how free and great the US is for something completely stupid like sexist ads or uncensored porn; God knows I have .

Worse. I get to hear them speak passionately about how the government should be made smaller, how waste and inefficiency should be cut from the system, how welfare should be abolished and people should "pay their own way" and "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." I hear all of that...

... and then I see them standing in line at the financial aid office later the same day.

Pot, kettle, black.

Reminds me intently of the teabaggers, only far less offensive. LOWER TAXES... but don't you dare touch my SSI and Medicare! Seriously guys, you can't have it both ways. I really think Americans just need to buck up a bit and accept significant tax increases until we can get the national debt under control. Especially these corporate assholes who are the ones who caused the financial meltdown in the first place...

This is why I put "refuse" on the Zogby polls I do when they ask how I classify myself and then they only provide a linear left-right scale. Some issues I can read as "conservative", some as "liberal", some as smatterings of both... because the two labels are *actually* inconsistent in their various positions.

If anyone ask I tell them i am a Conservative-Liberal-Libertarian

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinstrife

On the flip-side, I don't trust the Government's ability to run a Lemon-Aid stand, let alone 90% of the things it's involved with. The larger the Government, the less freedoms we have. I say that about both the Right and the Left. Each wants bigger government in their own way.

the thing is i don't trust the corporation that runs the lemonade stand to run it without slave labor while using the worst quality lemons and claim it is HQ without the government watching them.